Cargando…

Comparison of High Frequency Positive Pressure Mechanical Ventilation (HFPPV) With Conventional Method in the Treatment of Neonatal Respiratory Failure

BACKGROUND: Respiratory failure is a major problem in neonatal medicine in all over the world and has different causes. Using mechanical ventilation is one of its major treatments. OBJECTIVES: Different strategies have been expressed in this context, including high frequency mechanical ventilation....

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Amini, Elahe, Nayeri, Fatemeh Sadat, Hemati, Arezu, Esmaeilinia, Tahere, Nili, Firuzeh, Dalili, Hossein, Aminnejad, Majid
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Kowsar 2013
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3745744/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23983995
http://dx.doi.org/10.5812/ircmj.2791
_version_ 1782280732253618176
author Amini, Elahe
Nayeri, Fatemeh Sadat
Hemati, Arezu
Esmaeilinia, Tahere
Nili, Firuzeh
Dalili, Hossein
Aminnejad, Majid
author_facet Amini, Elahe
Nayeri, Fatemeh Sadat
Hemati, Arezu
Esmaeilinia, Tahere
Nili, Firuzeh
Dalili, Hossein
Aminnejad, Majid
author_sort Amini, Elahe
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: Respiratory failure is a major problem in neonatal medicine in all over the world and has different causes. Using mechanical ventilation is one of its major treatments. OBJECTIVES: Different strategies have been expressed in this context, including high frequency mechanical ventilation. PATIENTS AND METHODS: This study is a prospective randomized clinical trial conducted on all newborns with respiratory failure hospitalized in the NICU of Tehran vali-asr Hospital during 2009.These patients were divided in to two groups through block Randomization method; conventional mechanical ventilation group and high frequency ventilation group. RESULTS: Intraventricular hemorrhage (IVH) and air leak (e.g. pneumothorax) were less in HFPPV group than conventional group (P = 0.012 and P = 0.038). The mean time needed for mechanical ventilation was lower in HFPPV group, but this difference was not statistically significant (P = 0.922). Needing to O2 in 28 days of age was almost equal in both groups (P = 0. 99). Mortality, and refractory hypoxia and PVL were lower in HFPPV group, but the difference was not statistically significant (P = 0.301, P = 0. 508, P = 0. 113). CONCLUSIONS: Treatment of neonatal respiratory failure with high rate mechanical ventilation may reduce some complications.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-3745744
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2013
publisher Kowsar
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-37457442013-08-27 Comparison of High Frequency Positive Pressure Mechanical Ventilation (HFPPV) With Conventional Method in the Treatment of Neonatal Respiratory Failure Amini, Elahe Nayeri, Fatemeh Sadat Hemati, Arezu Esmaeilinia, Tahere Nili, Firuzeh Dalili, Hossein Aminnejad, Majid Iran Red Crescent Med J Research Article BACKGROUND: Respiratory failure is a major problem in neonatal medicine in all over the world and has different causes. Using mechanical ventilation is one of its major treatments. OBJECTIVES: Different strategies have been expressed in this context, including high frequency mechanical ventilation. PATIENTS AND METHODS: This study is a prospective randomized clinical trial conducted on all newborns with respiratory failure hospitalized in the NICU of Tehran vali-asr Hospital during 2009.These patients were divided in to two groups through block Randomization method; conventional mechanical ventilation group and high frequency ventilation group. RESULTS: Intraventricular hemorrhage (IVH) and air leak (e.g. pneumothorax) were less in HFPPV group than conventional group (P = 0.012 and P = 0.038). The mean time needed for mechanical ventilation was lower in HFPPV group, but this difference was not statistically significant (P = 0.922). Needing to O2 in 28 days of age was almost equal in both groups (P = 0. 99). Mortality, and refractory hypoxia and PVL were lower in HFPPV group, but the difference was not statistically significant (P = 0.301, P = 0. 508, P = 0. 113). CONCLUSIONS: Treatment of neonatal respiratory failure with high rate mechanical ventilation may reduce some complications. Kowsar 2013-03-05 2013-03 /pmc/articles/PMC3745744/ /pubmed/23983995 http://dx.doi.org/10.5812/ircmj.2791 Text en Copyright © 2013, Iranian Red Crescent Medical Journal http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3/ This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
spellingShingle Research Article
Amini, Elahe
Nayeri, Fatemeh Sadat
Hemati, Arezu
Esmaeilinia, Tahere
Nili, Firuzeh
Dalili, Hossein
Aminnejad, Majid
Comparison of High Frequency Positive Pressure Mechanical Ventilation (HFPPV) With Conventional Method in the Treatment of Neonatal Respiratory Failure
title Comparison of High Frequency Positive Pressure Mechanical Ventilation (HFPPV) With Conventional Method in the Treatment of Neonatal Respiratory Failure
title_full Comparison of High Frequency Positive Pressure Mechanical Ventilation (HFPPV) With Conventional Method in the Treatment of Neonatal Respiratory Failure
title_fullStr Comparison of High Frequency Positive Pressure Mechanical Ventilation (HFPPV) With Conventional Method in the Treatment of Neonatal Respiratory Failure
title_full_unstemmed Comparison of High Frequency Positive Pressure Mechanical Ventilation (HFPPV) With Conventional Method in the Treatment of Neonatal Respiratory Failure
title_short Comparison of High Frequency Positive Pressure Mechanical Ventilation (HFPPV) With Conventional Method in the Treatment of Neonatal Respiratory Failure
title_sort comparison of high frequency positive pressure mechanical ventilation (hfppv) with conventional method in the treatment of neonatal respiratory failure
topic Research Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3745744/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23983995
http://dx.doi.org/10.5812/ircmj.2791
work_keys_str_mv AT aminielahe comparisonofhighfrequencypositivepressuremechanicalventilationhfppvwithconventionalmethodinthetreatmentofneonatalrespiratoryfailure
AT nayerifatemehsadat comparisonofhighfrequencypositivepressuremechanicalventilationhfppvwithconventionalmethodinthetreatmentofneonatalrespiratoryfailure
AT hematiarezu comparisonofhighfrequencypositivepressuremechanicalventilationhfppvwithconventionalmethodinthetreatmentofneonatalrespiratoryfailure
AT esmaeiliniatahere comparisonofhighfrequencypositivepressuremechanicalventilationhfppvwithconventionalmethodinthetreatmentofneonatalrespiratoryfailure
AT nilifiruzeh comparisonofhighfrequencypositivepressuremechanicalventilationhfppvwithconventionalmethodinthetreatmentofneonatalrespiratoryfailure
AT dalilihossein comparisonofhighfrequencypositivepressuremechanicalventilationhfppvwithconventionalmethodinthetreatmentofneonatalrespiratoryfailure
AT aminnejadmajid comparisonofhighfrequencypositivepressuremechanicalventilationhfppvwithconventionalmethodinthetreatmentofneonatalrespiratoryfailure